3 ms·
Abusers of DMCA should just have the IP in question automatically reclassified as Public Domain. Problem solved. This may sound extreme (and it kind of is), bu
by gizmo 3y ago
Abusers of DMCA should just have the IP in question automatically reclassified as Public Domain. Problem solved.
This may sound extreme (and it kind of is), but companies send bogus legal threats under penalty of perjury and it's time to put the "magic of incentives" at work here. IP protection is not a constitutional right. You abuse it you lose it.
- jorams 3y agoThat's what I had in mind as the consequences in the last paragraph. I'm not sure what the process for that reclassification would look like. I think it does need some level of actual confirmation that the copyright owner is responsible for the abuse, while ignoring of abusers by a platform is easy and decentralized.
- metadat 3y agoDo the "abusers" tend to be the actual owners though? If not, there's no actual IP to take away from them. If not implemented carefully, this could incentivize shell games.
- bobthepanda 3y agoAlso I could totally seeing this getting abused with competitors posting fake DMCA for one’s content to get their competition public domained.
- zmgsabst 3y agoThat seems like you’d be committing perjury, which the victim could prove easily by showing there’s no authorization.
- ssl-3 3y agoDoes matter whether the abusers are the owners themselves or merely representative agents of that the owners have hired? I don't think that it does.
- dns_snek 3y agoPer the definition, yes. A DMCA notice submitted by someone other than the copyright owner or someone acting on their behalf is invalid.
- zmgsabst 3y agoIf you submit a DMCA notice without authorization, then it’s perjury. If you submit one with authorization, then the authorizing party should put their IP as collateral.
- Retric 3y agoSome penalty is clearly appropriate, but IP protection is part of the constitution.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- roblabla 3y agoDo you have a source for that? I don't see anything in the US constitution being remotely close to Intellectual Property protection. It does have several protection on property, but I'm pretty sure it's talking about the physical kind.
- zmgsabst 3y agoArticle I, Section 8, Clause 8: > “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/clause-8/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8...
- ncallaway 3y agoThat is a power granted to congress, not a constitutional right. That is, the constitution grants Congress the authority to create a legislative IP right. It does not create a constitutional IP right. You can tell, because Congress could say: “stuff it, no IP rights for anyone. Copyright no longer exists for new works”, and that would be constitutional.
- Retric 3y agoPeople interpret the constitution in different ways, but this is commonly interpreted as a requirement not just a power. Critically, this stuff is interpreted by the Supreme Court not simply anyone so someone could bring a case should congress fail to provide any protection. Thus congress could specify that copyright only lasts for 1 month, but they can’t just ignore it or set it to 1 second without the courts getting involved.